Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Ah, see that is where we are split right from the get-go. I thought the whole "new Constitution" thing was silly. We don't need a new Constitution, we just need to enforce the current one once more. Not to mention if I am remembering correctly the whole premise of that thread was "but don't redo it while Republicans are in power", aka.. wait until Democrats take over, and then redo it. Lol... which would just be the same problem, but for the opposite side. There's no way that either party or even a mythical bipartisan effort could redo the Constitution in any kind of fair and impartial way that would make it better than it currently is written up.

Of course I want to place importance on the State as a whole. It's why we have States. When you join the National Guard, you join your State's military. When you get a driver's license, you get your State's license. You are protected by your State's Constitution. We're The United States of America, not the United Counties of America, or United Townships of America. Lol

You say that it's an uneven voice given to small population states, but that's not true. It's an importance placed on non-extremist/non-single-party population states. The current "Swing States" (US population ranking):
-Colorado (21st)
-Florida (3rd)
-Iowa (30th)
-Michigan (10th)
-Minnesota (22nd)
-Ohio (7th)
-Nevada (34th)
-New Hampshire (41st)
-North Carolina (9th)
-Pennsylvania (6th)
-Virginia (12th)
-Wisconsin (20th)

That's a pretty good sample of states from high-mid population.

If I have to choose between giving a larger voice to political extremist echo chambers, and giving a larger voice to the people who are open to choosing from both sides, I choose the latter. Mostly because I don't care that much for either party, so I don't want to be wedded to being extreme for one or the other.

A direct vote is just simply too much like mob mentality rule.

We have a great constitution, but 17 small updates to it (2 of which being related to drinking booze) over the last 230 years isn't enough in my opinion. There are struggle changes that I'd like to see. This is just a philosophical debate over the structure of government.

Whoever controls the federal government matters not. A change requires the states to agree.

The part about small states getting an uneven voice is true. There's really no arguing against that as the system was designed to ensure it. California gets 1 electoral vote for every 713,636 citizens. Wyoming gets 1 for every 195,167 citizens.

You misunderstood me and thought I was saying swing states are all small population states. I'm saying the system counts voters in small states more so than in big states. All voters should have an equal voice. That itself isn't mob rule.